Griffith Research Online
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
Family members' perceptions of thenursing bedside handover
AuthorTobiano, Georgia, Chaboyer, Wendy, McMurray, Anne
Published2013
Journal TitleJournal of Clinical Nursing
DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04212.x
Copyright StatementCopyright 2013 Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. This is the author-manuscript version of the paper.Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.The definitive version is availableat http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Downloaded fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/56039
1
TITLE PAGE
Title: Family Members’ Perceptions of the Nursing Bedside Handover
Article Type: Original Article
Corresponding Author: Georgia Tobiano
Corresponding Author’s Institution: Griffith University
Order of Authors: Georgia Tobiano, RN, BN (Hons); Wendy Chaboyer, RN, PhD, FRCNA;
Anne McMurray, AM, RN, PhD, FRCNA.
2
ABSTRACT
Aims and objectives: To explore families’ perceptions of shift-to-shift bedside handover.
Background: The potential role families can play in bedside handover is unknown.
Understanding family members’ perceptions can provide a foundation for nurses to tailor
their bedside handover to family members’ perceptions, encouraging their involvement and
potentially improving patient care.
Design: Qualitative study, using case study methodology.
Method: The study was conducted with eight family members in one rehabilitation ward in
Queensland, Australia in 2009. Data included observations of bedside handover, field notes
and in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis of data was conducted to identify unique and
common themes indicative of family perceptions.
Results: Three major themes emerged. The first, understanding the situation, consisted of
three subthemes: feeling informed, understanding the patient’s condition and understanding
patient’s treatment. The second theme was interacting with nursing staff, with five
subthemes, including sharing information, clarifying information, assisting in care, asking
questions and interpreting for the patient. The final subtheme was finding value, which
contained five subthemes: feeling at ease, feeling included, valuing individualization,
preparing for the future and maintaining patient privacy.
Conclusions: Bedside handover provides an opportunity to involve family members in
patient care and promote family-centred care core concepts. Family members value the
chance to participate and can ultimately improve the accuracy of handover communication.
Relevance to clinical practice: Bedside handover is beneficial for nurses, patients and
family members and embodies patient and family-centred care. Managers should consider its
3
implementation in hospitals, developing strategies such as standard operating protocols for a
more family inclusive approach to communication. Nurses may require further training to
best undertake bedside handover and involve family members in care. The study suggests
expansion of research into this important area of family centred care
Keywords: Nurse, bedside, patient, family, quality of care, communication.
Word count: 4,355
4
INTRODUCTION
Communication failures are the leading cause of patient harm (Leonard et al. 2004) and are
the root cause of 65% of sentinel or catastrophic events (The Joint Commission 2005).
Handover presents a common clinical situation where there is a high risk of
miscommunication (Clancy 2008). Various studies have found inadequacies in the content of
nursing shift-to-shift handover (Sexton et al. 2004, O'Connell et al. 2008, Welsh et al. 2010),
sometimes related to clinical information about the patient being communicated incorrectly
(Currie 2002, Fenton 2006, Riesenberg et al. 2010).
One solution to the problem of missed or inaccurate information has been to conduct
the nursing handover at the bedside (Chaboyer et al. 2009), so that patients and their families
can contribute vital information (Kaufman 2008). Previous research has shown patients’
support for this practice (Cahill 1998, Kassean & Jagoo 2005, Kelly 2005, McMurray et al.
2011), however, there is limited evidence on family members’ perspectives of bedside
handover. This study aimed to improve this gap in knowledge by examining family members’
perspectives.
BACKGROUND
Allowing patients and family members to participate in bedside handover presents an
approach that is congruent with family-centred care (FCC) theory. In essence FCC is “...an
innovative approach to planning, delivery and evaluation of healthcare, governed by mutually
beneficial partnerships between the health professional, patient and family” (Institute for
Patient- and Family-Centred Care 2010, p. 1). The four core concepts of FCC are dignity and
respect, information sharing, participation and collaboration (Institute for Family-Centred
Care 2008). Ultimately, undertaking a FCC approach could result in improved family and
patient satisfaction (Fisher et al. 2008), reduced anxiety for the family (Polst & Nelson 2008)
5
and improved patient safety (Kaufman 2008). Yet, there is growing evidence to suggest that,
although FCC represents an ideal approach to nursing practice, it is not being implemented
well into the clinical setting (Wright & Bell 2004, Astedt-Kurki 2010, Saveman 2010).
In adult settings, researchers have found that not all nurses have interacted in a
supportive way towards family members (Benzein et al. 2008). On the contrary, it is the
family, rather than the nurse who tends to initiate interactions (Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001a,
Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b), reflecting family members’ need for information that will be
helpful in caring for the person hospitalized (Astedt-Kurki et al. 1997, Saveman et al. 2005,
Van Horn & Kautz 2007, Almborg et al. 2009). Yet, for nurses, eliciting information from
family members could yield invaluable clinical information.
Bedside handover presents an ideal opportunity for nurses to interact with family
members. Evidence shows the merits of bedside handover, particularly in ensuring that the
patient has the opportunity to convey any relevant information to nurses at the time of
handover (Cahill 1998, Kassean & Jagoo 2005, Kelly 2005, Chaboyer et al. 2009, McMurray
et al. 2011). Other strategies can also enhance the accuracy of information during handover.
Standard operating protocols (SOPs) encompass standardised solutions, tools and strategies
for the delivery of handover communication (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality
in Health Care (ACSQHC) 2007). SOPs are based on the leading available evidence, created
to advance systemic improvements, with the potential to reduce the risk of patient harm
(ACSQHC 2007). One SOP for bedside handover recommends that family members should
be allowed to stay during bedside handover and actively participate, with patients’ permission
(Chaboyer et al. 2008). This may ultimately enhance patient safety through better continuity
of care and family members playing a role in the accuracy of information handed over
(Kaufman 2008). Despite these recommendations, many handovers do not include patient and
family contributions (ACSQHC 2008). Instead, patients and their family are often perceived
6
as a source of distraction, interrupting the handover (ACSQHC 2008). Although some
hospitals have introduced bedside handover, no research has been done to reflect the
perceptions of family members.
Aim
Without knowledge of family members’ perceptions of bedside handover, the potential role
families could play in communicating may be limited, and as a result, their potential
contribution to patient safety could be overlooked. The aim of this case study was to explore
families’ perceptions of the shift-to-shift bedside handover in one adult rehabilitation setting.
Interpreting family members’ personal experiences has the potential to draw attention to
patient safety issues, highlight better ways to involve families in clinical communication and
identify concerns to promote continuity of care.
METHODS
Design
The research approach was a single case study (Yin 2009) where data from individual family
members represented ‘mini-cases’ or multiple units of analysis (Yin 2009). This approach
allowed both within-case and cross-case analysis (Gangeness & Yurkovich 2006, Luck et al.
2006). In this study, the case was bound by place and situation, with the context being the
single rehabilitation ward. The boundaries were defined by the event of bedside handover
occurring at the day-to-afternoon nursing shift, which included visiting hours and the
presence of family members.
Participants
The study recruited a convenience sample of eight participants, who currently had family
members admitted to one rehabilitation ward in a hospital in Queensland, Australia, in 2009.
It was not a requirement of the study that family members had previous experience in the
7
handover, but they had to be willing to take part and be observed by the researcher during
bedside handover. The sample was confined to eight people, once analysis showed that no
new themes were emerging.
Data Collection
Data collection involved interviews, observations and field notes. The observations of
families’ interactions occurred in the context of bedside handovers, which were undertaken
prior to the interviews. The interviews were in-depth, semi-structured and audio-taped.
Interviews were designed to encourage participants to relate their experiences in the deepest
and richest way possible, to allow deeper understandings of their experience (Taylor et al.
2006). Interviews were conducted in various places around the ward such as the tea room,
courtyard or patient dining room, to accommodate the needs of staff, participants and any
events on the ward.
The interviews were conducted as a guided conversation. Questions were general, with
prompts to encourage responses. Examples of interview questions included:
1. What do you think about nurses doing their shift-to-shift handover at your relative’s
bedside?
2. What do you think your role is in the bedside handover?
3. Are there issues you think should not be discussed during bedside handover? If so,
what are they?
Field notes were recorded to substantiate observations, which captured non-verbal
communication and interactions allowing the researchers to contextualise the data. The
combination of both methods of data collection allowed triangulation of sources, which, in
turn helped maintain rigour of the study findings (Yin 2009).
Data analysis
8
Analysis was concurrent with data collection, which allowed ongoing review of the data and
the sampling strategy. Audio-taped data were transcribed and discussed within the research
team to ensure congruence in the identification of meaning. Coding and categorization of the
transcripts occurred in the following way to develop major themes:
1. Level one: raw data were given labels using the words spoken by the participants
(Taylor et al. 2006), which allowed data reduction and brought the text into more
precise meanings;
2. Level two: the data were organised to form links and emerging subthemes and themes
(Taylor et al. 2006); and
3. Level three: themes and subthemes were labelled and linked with other themes and
subthemes, derived from level one and two, to sort the data into meaningful
connections (Taylor et al. 2006).
Analysis of each transcript was undertaken separately. Through the repetitive reading and
re-reading transcripts and listening to tapes, emergent themes were identified and coded. The
identified themes were then compared with the data emerging from other transcripts, to
identify unique and common elements. Field notes were analysed in conjunction with the
transcripts to ensure congruent understanding of the themes.
Ethical issues
Ethics approval was received from the University and the Human Research Ethics
Committees of the Hospital. All participants were given an information sheet and signed a
consent form.
Rigour
The participants who volunteered to participate were provided with information on the
purpose of the study and processes involved in data collection. All participants were deemed
9
to be credible as they were approached in their natural role of visiting the patient who was
their relative. The context was considered appropriate due to the frequent involvement of
family members and use of bedside handover on the ward. Joint discussion of the emerging
analysis also ensured common understandings by the researchers as well as family members.
Auditability was ensured by explicitly describing and reflecting on the analytical steps at
each stage of the study (Nelson 2008). This ongoing reflexivity was an important mechanism
for identifying unique and shared meanings emerging from the data, as distinct from
individual preconceptions or expectations of the data (Holloway & Wheeler 2002).
RESULTS
The participants were eight females, as no males volunteered for the study. Four participants
were patients’ wives, with the remaining four being patients’ daughters. Six participants had
been involved in bedside handover prior to the day they were observed and interviewed,
while the remaining two reported it being the first time they were present during the bedside
handover. Five patients were hospitalised due to suffering a stroke, while the other three had
orthopaedic conditions. They had been hospitalised for 14-45 days (median 24.5 days). The
analysis revealed three themes (see Table 1).
Understanding the situation
The theme understanding the situation was comprised of three subthemes all of which
contributed to a deeper understanding. In the first subtheme, feeling informed, family
members outlined the importance of being allowed to listen to the information communicated
between nurses. Bedside handover provided a sense of ease as family members did not have
to disrupt nurses during the shift to find out information:
I think it’s great, really, because I get to hear what they’re talking about and it helps
me to be informed and I like to be informed and know what’s going on. Because
nothing’s worst than being left out as a family, like you’re just sitting there and you
10
don’t know, you’ve got to drag someone out and ask questions. Whereas that’s good,
it’s practical and it’s helpful.
The next subtheme, understanding patient condition, showed that family members
sought an in-depth explanation of the patient’s situation, whether it was an improvement or
deterioration:
Just listening to what’s going on and what progress Mum’s doing. That’s the main
thing and that she’s not going backwards that she’s going forwards...
Further to understanding patient’s condition, family members also wanted to become
aware of the nursing treatments, interventions and plans for nursing care that were provided,
which was related to the subtheme labelled understanding patient treatment:
I think it is a worthwhile exercise in terms of knowing what’s being done to the patient
who is usually a relative of yours and understanding what the treatment is.
Interacting with nursing staff
The theme interacting with nursing staff included five subthemes revolving around
interactions between family members and nursing staff in the handover process. The first
subtheme, sharing information, identified family members’ ability to provide relevant details
about the patient of which nurses were sometimes not aware, thereby enhancing the quality of
information communicated:
One family member was observed being able to share information about what a splint
was being used for and the occupational therapist’s latest orders regarding the splint. The
following quote refers to Michelle helping with the “support” or splint:
They’re the professionals and Steve and I both rely on them and I mean the only thing
I could help them with was in regard to the support that was the latest that I had heard of.
11
As reflected in the second subtheme, clarifying information, family members were
able to identify information the nurses handed over that was missed or wrong, therefore,
improving the quality of handover:
...or give them information like I think they had the wrong information there about my
Mum’s incontinence, she isn’t incontinent so much...she just gets a bad cough.
Another subtheme that emerged was assisting with care. Family members spoke of
helping with various duties during hospitalization. Such ‘hands-on’ assistance provided
another source of information, which they discussed with nursing staff during the handover.
Assisting with care also provided an opportunity to clarify information with the nurses:
I help do Mum’s washes and changes and that’s not common with every other family
member...we hand it on to their RNs what we find, a scratch or a breakdown, so that’s
my role there, I think it’s just that I’m available to answer as many questions of what
they want to know.
The next subtheme, asking questions, showed that all family members shared the
same opinion, that they felt not only comfortable but confident to voice questions during the
handover. Family members were able to gain additional information by questioning the
nurses:
...I feel free to ask questions if I wanted to.
The final subtheme encapsulates the role of the family member as an interpreter for
the patient. Due to the patients being ill, vulnerable or hearing impaired, the family members
usually took on the patient’s role of listening and participating with the nurses in the
handover and would then explain elements of the handover to the patient in lay terms so the
patient was informed:
12
...he can’t hear properly so then I can communicate to him anything that he needs to
know to keep an honest and open communication with him about things that are happening,
so that’s good for him.
Finding value
The theme finding value included five subthemes, indicating how and why they valued the
information gained during handover. The first subtheme, feeling at ease, arose as the family
members gained a clear perspective of the patient’s condition and treatment during handover
and were able to feel confident, which relieved family members’ distress:
Eases your mind a bit doesn’t it, coz I could be thinking all kinds of wild things and
then you listen to them talking and it brings is back into perspective a bit.
Another feeling evoked by family members was feeling included, which was the
second subtheme. They felt encouraged to be part of the handover and were seen as an
integral component of the larger whole:
It’s fantastic, because of the fact that I can be involved in the handover.
In addition to feeling at ease and feeling included, the subtheme of valuing
individualization of patient care emerged. Family members commented positively on the way
patients were treated during handover. The patients were no longer just a bed number; the
handover enabled the nurses to humanise the patients and tailor their care to individual needs:
Doing it (handover) at the front desk they just know a number of the bed they don’t
know the name of the person you’re talking about. I think doing it at the bed the nurse
can talk to Mum, tell her what happened through the day...
Another subtheme, preparing for the future, revolved around having the ability to
prepare for discharge, through being kept up-to-date on the patient’s condition and treatment,
and expectations for the period following discharge:
13
Well you have a role as a bystander, you’re not the patient, you’re not providing the
nursing but ultimately you are going to be involved in discharge so it’s good to know what’s
going on.
The final subtheme, maintaining patient privacy, revealed that family members felt
that any lack of privacy created by bedside handover was outweighed by the benefits of
improving the accuracy of communication:
The only thing, coz there is three other beds in the room, you know somebody else
could be listening in, but I think people are too concerned with their own care to
really notice what’s going on, and it’s nothing extremely confidential, it’s just the
medication the person’s on, it’s not discussing anything that the person should be
embarrassed about. You’ll be sitting there having a conversation about bowel
movements (Laughs)... but no couldn’t think of anything that they said that should be
excluded.
DISCUSSION
This study identified a number of perceived benefits of family members’ involvement in
bedside handover. The findings are congruent with the four core concepts of FCC.
The first FCC concept of dignity and respect is evident in the study (Institute for
Family-Centred Care 2008). Bedside handover demonstrated to family members that nurses
were individualising the patient’s care rather than treating people indifferently; reinforcing
the model of FCC. McMurray et al. (2011) found that patients also felt respected and
acknowledged during bedside handover, whereby nurses made patients feel like a person
rather than just a patient. The process of bedside handover allows the nurses to become closer
both in physical and social proximity to the patient and family, creating a different dynamic
to other depersonalised methods of handover.
The family also appreciated the opportunity to listen to the handover and interact as
partners with nursing staff, which suggested to them that nurses respected them. This is a
positive finding given that other studies have found a lack of interaction between nurses and
14
family members (Benzein et al. 2008). Perhaps bedside handover is a way to redress this lack
of support by aiding nurses’ ability to make family members feel included.
Maintaining confidentiality is another form of respect. It was notable that families did
not voice concerns regarding patient privacy at the bedside. This is similar to earlier studies
of patients’ perspectives, where patients also reported no issues with privacy during bedside
handover (Cahill 1998, Greaves 1999, Kassean & Jagoo 2005, McMurray et al. 2011). The
findings of previous studies indicate that concerns regarding patient privacy are more of a
problem for nurses (Greaves 1999, Currie 2002, O'Connell et al. 2008, Chaboyer et al. 2009)
than patients (McMurray et al. 2011) and family members.
Information sharing, a second concept of FCC (Institute for Family-Centred Care
2008), was a crucial element in family members’ participation, in fact, bedside handover
exemplified what is meant by a two-way process of information sharing. The family members
thought that the bedside handover helped them to be better informed by nurses about aspects
of the patients’ conditions such as diagnosis and treatments, especially when they were
encouraged to ask questions. These findings consonant with studies that have outlined the
importance for family members of being informed about patients’ condition ( Astedt-Kurki et
al. 1997, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001a, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b, Jumisko et al. 2007 Duhamel
et al. 2009) and treatment (Astedt-Kurki et al. 1997, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b, Duhamel et
al. 2009). Having the opportunity to ask nurses questions is congruent with prior studies that
show that bedside handover had the ability to address patients’ questions (Timonen &
Sihvonen 2000, Kassean & Jagoo 2005).
Family members were able to inform nursing staff about pertinent patient information,
illustrating a true relationship of reciprocity, a core assumption of the nurse-family
relationship (Leahey & Harper-Jaques 1996). Interestingly, from a nursing perspective, the
15
mutual provision of information is instrumental to improving nursing care (Burton 2000,
Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b). Conversely, in May et al.’s (2001) study, family members were
not overly comfortable with providing information to nurses. Perhaps bedside handover
allowed family members to feel comfortable enough to share their knowledge and promote
two-way communication.
Family members spoke of their ability to clarify the information nurses handed over at
the bedside. Two studies on patients’ perspectives yielded similar results, whereby patients
monitored information handed over at the bedside and clarified inaccuracies (Cahill 1998,
McMurray et al. 2011). With the high number of handover content errors (Currie 2002,
Sexton et al. 2004, Fenton 2006, O'Connell et al. 2008, Staggers & Jennings 2009,
Riesenberg et al. 2010, Welsh et al. 2010), bedside handover gives the family member an
opportunity to monitor the accuracy of information, which may improve the quality of
information handed over and ultimately promote safer care.
Being involved in handover was time efficient in that it helped family members
access information while they were visiting. Family members commonly have to chase
nurses and initiate conversations to find out information on the ward (Astedt-Kurki et al.
1997, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001a, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b, May et al. 2001). Instead, bedside
handover offers an easy and predictable mode of communication, with a formal time for
interactions being embedded into nurses’ work processes, allowing families to plan their
visits. In this respect, bedside handover challenges the traditional methods of communication,
whereby nurses and doctors are authoritative, holding information on patients (MacKean et
al. 2005, Sodomka 2006).
The third FCC concept is participation (Institute for Family-Centred Care 2008).
Bedside handover gave the families an easy way to participate in the patient’s care. Studies
16
conducted in other settings have reported patients’ lack of involvement in bedside handover
for various reasons (Cahill 1998, Greaves 1999, Timonen & Sihvonen 2000, McMurray et al.
2011). The participants in this study also commented on patients’ limited ability to
participate, but with family members taking an active role in the bedside handover, they were
able to act on behalf of the patient. This type of participation has been identified as a common
duty in some families (Jumisko et al. 2007, Austin et al. 2009). Their active participation also
helped them convey information to the patient, a benefit reported in other studies (Bergbom
& Askwall 2000, Söderströma et al. 2009). Providing information and ensuring the patients’
needs are met, promotes patients’ autonomy and independence, which is important to both
family members and patients (Phinney 2006, Cahill et al. 2009). This is particularly relevant
in the current era of patient centred care, where being focused on the patient rather than the
provider is seen as an indication of quality (Luxford et al. 2011).
Being treated as a contributor to care helped the family members feel that they were
doing all they could for the patient. Other studies have highlighted family members’ desire to
assist in patient care while in hospital (Astedt-Kurki et al. 1997, Astedt-Kurki et al. 1999,
Shields 2001, Shields et al. 2006). Family members who were already carers for the patient
would be familiar with assisting the patient (Shields 2001, Jolley & Shields 2009), and
assisting in care might help promote the normality of patient and family life (Saveman 2010).
On the other hand, helping with some care may ease the family into the caring process, which
may be new to them. The family members may feel they are helping the nurses through
assisting in care, which may make them feel like a participant in the hospital setting,
ultimately empowering the family through active engagement (MacKean et al. 2005, Bamm
& Rosenbaum 2008, Kaufman 2008, Polst & Nelson 2008).
17
A fourth dimension of FCC is collaboration (Institute for Family-Centred Care 2008).
By the family and nurse undertaking a collaborative relationship, they were able to work
together to prepare for the future. Discharge information was an important topic for family
members to discuss with nurses, which was similar to the findings of other studies (Astedt-
Kurki et al. 2001a, Astedt-Kurki et al. 2001b). Importantly, lack of discharge information has
been associated with family dissatisfaction (Almborg et al. 2009). Discharge planning is an
extremely important part of the hospital experience. Bedside handover provided a source of
information to assist family members in planning patient care at home. This resonates with
the findings of Chaboyer et al. (2008) where nurses agreed that discharge planning was
improved after implementation of bedside handover.
Limitations
The current study is limited in being confined to a single site, in one rehabilitation ward, at a
medium-sized hospital with a sample that included only women. However no claims for
generaliseability are made from interpretive studies, and all care was taken to separate out
preconceptions from interpretations. The small sample size also precluded a demographic
analysis of differences, which would have been instructive in a larger sample. However, the
findings provide insight into family members’ perspectives, which could lead to further
research studies and expansion of this type of family-centred research.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates that bedside handover was one strategy to promote FCC, an
approach to care that is now known to improve both quality and safety in health care. It
follows that because nurses are exposed to family members frequently and are available 24
hours a day, they should take advantage of this unique opportunity (Wright & Bell 2004). By
involving family members in bedside handover, a truly collaborative relationship can occur
18
between the family and the nurses, which could lead to increased satisfaction by both parties.
While FCC appears to be a difficult concept to effectively implement (Jolley & Shields 2009,
Duhamel 2010), bedside handover may be one way to begin a FCC approach to nursing
practice. Families value the opportunity to participate in bedside handover and this group
believed they can improve its accuracy.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
The findings of this study suggest a number of recommendations for nursing practice,
management, education and future research. First, implementation of bedside handover in
other ward settings should be encouraged to promote a FCC approach to nursing, improving
the quality and accuracy of information and increase patient safety. Second, because bedside
handover reflects FCC and was valued by families, adult hospital wards should create an
environment that fosters FCC. Finally, initiatives should be undertaken that promote family
participation in bedside handover. Family members want to be involved, and nurses need to
look at the family as a partner that enhances patient care.
For managers, firstly, support will be required to implement bedside handover and
this may be expedited by using standard operating procedures. Nurses and family members
need to be able to voice concerns to the manager about bedside handover and work through
these accordingly. Second, it will be important to evaluate the new process in order to assess
its improvement in the local context. Third, managers should aim to foster an environment
that supports families, adding FCC values into the ward’s ethos and making this approach
clear to staff.
In regards to education, some nurses may require more knowledge about the benefits
of FCC and how it can best be implemented; this may encourage nurses to include family
members in bedside handover. Second, some nurses may need additional education and
training in communication skills; this will equip them with language that encourages family
19
members to participate in bedside handover and enable them to be in an effective and
interactive relationship with family members.
Finally, the study findings suggest that this line of research should be extended to
identify whether there are any gender related differences in family members’ perspectives of
bedside handover. Second, the family members who participated tended to be close and
involved in the ongoing care of the patient. It could be that studies in different settings, with
different types of clients and family members, could have alternative findings. Third, there
should be ongoing research into ways to foster FCC in adult hospital settings. Finally, further
research should be conducted on effective ways for nurses to communicate and work
effectively with family members (Flowers et al. 2008).
20
REFERENCES
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) (2007) Priority
program 5: National clinical handover initiative: Industry brief. Retrieved January 9,
2010, from
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/2AF6AC
7C1D157D1CA2572DF00083B3D/$File/Industry%20Briefing%20Clinical%20Han
over.PDF
ACSQHC (2008) Windows into safety and quality in health care 2008. Retrieved Febuary
13, 2009, from
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/4FCB4F45
9D87F262CA2574EF0071099C/$File/Media%20release%20-
%20National%20Report%20Launch.pdf
Almborg A, Ulander K, Thulin A & Berg S (2009) Understanding the needs of families:
Discharge planning of stroke patients: The relatives’ perceptions of participation.
Journal of Clinical Nursing 18, 199-209.
Astedt-Kurki P (2010) Family nursing research for practice: The Finnish perspective. Journal
of Family Nursing 16, 256-268.
Astedt-Kurki P, Lehti K, Paunonen M & Paavilainen E (1999) Family member as a hospital
patient: Sentiments and functioning of the family. International Journal of Nursing
Practice 5, 155-163.
Astedt-Kurki P, Paavilainen E, Tammentie T & Paunonen M (2001a) Interaction between
family members and health care providers in an acute care setting in Finland. Journal
of Family Nursing 7, 371-390.
Astedt-Kurki P, Paavilainen E, Tammentie T & Paunonen M (2001b) Interaction between
adult patients' family members and nursing staff on a hospital ward. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Sciences 15, 142-150.
Astedt-Kurki P, Paunonen M & Lehti K (1997) Family members' experiences of their role in
a hospital: A pilot study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 25, 908-914.
Austin W, Goble E, Strang V, Mitchell A, Thompson E, Lantz H, Balt L, Lemermeyer G &
Vass K (2009) Supporting relationships between family and staff in continuing care
settings. Journal of Family Nursing 15, 360-383.
Bamm EL & Rosenbaum P (2008) Family-centered theory: Origins, development, barriers,
and supports to implementation in rehabilitation medicine. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 89, 1618-1624.
Benzein EG, Johansson P, Årestedt KF & Saveman B (2008) Nurses' attitudes about the
importance of families in nursing care: A survey of Swedish nurses. Journal of
Family Nursing 14, 162-180.
Bergbom I & Askwall A (2000) The nearest and dearest: A lifeline for ICU patients.
Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 16, 384-395.
Burton CR (2000) A description of the nursing role in stroke rehabilitation. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 32, 174-181.
21
Cahill E, Lewis LM, Barg FK & Bogner HR (2009) “You don't want to burden them”: Older
adults' views on family involvement in care. Journal of Family Nursing 15, 295-317.
Cahill J (1998) Patient's perceptions of bedside handovers. Journal of Clinical Nursing 7,
351-359.
Chaboyer W, McMurray A, Johnson J, Hardy L, Wallis M & Chu FY (2009) Bedside
handover: Quality improvement strategy to "Transform care at the bedside". Journal
of Nursing Care Quality 24, 136-142.
Chaboyer W, McMurray A, Wallis M & Chang HA (2008) Standard operating protocol for
implementing bedside handover in nursing. Retrieved August 24, 2010, from
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/content/com-pubs_CH-
BH&WC-con/$File/SOP-Bedside-Handover.pdf
Clancy CM (2008) The importance of simulation: Preventing hand-off mistakes. Association
of Operating Room Nurses 88, 625-627.
Currie J (2002) Improving the efficiency of patient handover. Emergency Nursing 10, 24-27.
Duhamel F (2010) Implementing family nursing: How do we translate knowledge into
clinical practice? Part II: The evolution of 20 years of teaching, research, and practice
to a center of excellence in family nursing. Journal of Family Nursing 16, 8-25.
Duhamel F, Dupuis F & Wright L (2009) Families’ and nurses’ responses to the “One
question question”: Reflections for clinical practice, education, and research in family
nursing. Journal of Family Nursing 15, 461-485.
Fenton W (2006) Developing a guide to improve the quality of nurses' handover. Nursing
Older People 18, 32-37.
Fisher C, Lindhorst H, Matthews T, Munroe DJ, Paulin D & Scott D (2008) Nursing staff
attitudes and behaviours regarding family presence in the hospital setting. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 64, 615-624.
Flowers KA, St John W & Bell JM (2008) The role of the clinical laboratory in teaching and
learning family nursing skills. Journal of Family Nursing 14, 242-267.
Gangeness GE & Yurkovich E (2006) Revisiting case study as a nursing research design.
Nurse Researcher 13, 7-13.
Greaves C (1999) Patients' perceptions of bedside handover. Nursing Standard 14, 32-35.
Holloway I & Wheeler S (2002) Qualitative research in nursing (2nd ed.). Blackwell
Publishing, Carlton, Victoria.
Institute for Family-Centred Care (2008) Advancing the practice of patient and family
centred care: How to get started. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
www.familycentredcare.org
Institute for Patient- and Family-Centred Care (2010) FAQ. Retrieved October 20, 2010,
from http://www.ipfcc.org/faq.html
Jolley J & Shields L (2009) The evolution of family-centered care. Journal of Pediatric
Nursing 24, 164-170.
Jumisko E, Lexell J & Söderberg S (2007) Living with moderate or severe traumatic brain
injury: The meaning of family members' experiences. Journal of Family Nursing 13,
353-369.
22
Kassean HK & Jagoo ZB (2005) Managing change in the nursing handover from traditional
to bedside handover: A case study from Mauritius. BioMed Central Nursing 4, 1-6.
Kaufman J (2008) Patients as partners. Nursing Management 39, 45-48.
Kelly M (2005) Change from an office-based to a walk-around handover system. Nursing
Times 101, 34-35.
Leahey M & Harper-Jaques S (1996) Family-nurse relationships: Core assumptions and
clinical implications. Journal of Family Nursing 2, 133-151.
Leonard M, Graham S & Bonacum D (2004) The human factor: The critical importance of
effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality and Safety in
Health Care 13, 85-90.
Luck L, Jackson D & Usher K (2006) Case study: A bridge across the paradigms. Nursing
Inquiry 13, 103-109.
Luxford K, Gelb Safran D & Delbanco T (2011) Promoting patient-centred care: A
qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare organizations with a
reputation for improving the patient experience. International Journal for Quality in
Health Care 23, 510-515.
MacKean GL, Thurston WE & Scott CM (2005) Bridging the divide between families and
health professionals' perspectives on family-centred care. Health Expectations 8, 74
85.
May J, Ellis-Hill C & Payne S (2001) Gatekeeping and legitimization: How informal carer's
relationship with health care workers is revealed in their everyday interactions.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 36, 364-375.
McMurray A, Chaboyer W, Wallis M, Johnson J & Gehrke T (2011) Patients' perspectives of
bedside nursing handover. Collegian 18, 19-26.
Nelson AM (2008) Addressing the threat of evidence-based practice to qualitative inquiry
through increasing attention to quality: A discussion paper. International Journal of
Nursing Studies 45, 316-322.
O'Connell B, Macdonald K & Kelly C (2008) Nursing handover: It's time for a change.
Contemporary Nurse 30, 2-11.
Phinney A (2006) Family strategies for supporting involvement in meaningful activity by
persons with dementia. Journal of Family Nursing 12, 80-101.
Polst G & Nelson DP (2008) An interdisciplinary team approach to evidence-based
improvement in family-centered care. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly 31, 110-118.
Riesenberg LA, Leisch J & Cunningham JM (2010) Nursing handoffs: A systematic review
of the literature. The American Journal of Nursing 110, 24-34.
Saveman B (2010) Family nursing research for practice: The Swedish perspective. Journal of
Family Nursing 16, 8-25.
Saveman B, Mahlen CD & Benzein EG (2005) Nursing students' beliefs about families in
nursing care. Nurse Education Today 25, 480-486.
Sexton A, Chan C, Elliott M, Stuart J, Jayasuriya R & Crookes P (2004) Nursing handovers:
Do we really need them? Journal of Nursing Management 12, 37-42.
Shields L (2001) A review of the literature from developed and developing countries relating
to the effects fo hospitalization on children and parents. International Nursing Review
48, 29-31.
23
Shields L, Pratt J & Hunter J (2006) Family centred care: A review of qualitative studies.
Journal of Clinical Nursing 15, 1317-1323.
Söderströma IK, Saveman B, Hagberga MS & Benzein EG (2009) Family adaptation in
relation to a family member’s stay in ICU. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 25,
250-257.
Sodomka P (2006) Engaging patients and families: A high leverage tool for health care
leaders. Hospitals and Health Networks 80, 28-29.
Staggers N & Jennings BM (2009) The content and context of change of shift report on
medical and surgical units. The Journal of Nursing Administration 39, 393-341.
Taylor B, Kermode S & Roberts K (2006) Research in nursing and health care: Evidence for
practice (3rd ed.). Thomson, South Melbourne, Victoria.
The Joint Commission (2005) Sentinel event statistics-June 30, 2005. Retrieved 26 March,
2009, from http://www.jointcommission.org/SentinelEvents/Statistics/
Timonen L & Sihvonen M (2000) Patient participation in bedside reporting on surgical
wards. Journal of Clinical Nursing 9, 542-548.
Van Horn ER & Kautz DD (2007) Promotion of family integrity in the acute care setting: A
review of the literature. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 26, 101-107.
Welsh CA, Flanagan ME & Ebright P (2010) Barriers and facilitators to nursing handoffs:
Recommendations for redesign. Nursing Outlook 58, 148-154.
Wright LM & Bell JM (2004) Retrospective: Nurses, families, and illness: A new
combination. Journal of Family Nursing 10, 3-11
Yin RK (2009) Case study research: Designs and methods (4th ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
24
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Family members’ perspectives of bedside handover
Theme Subtheme
Understanding the Situation Feeling informed
Understanding patient’s condition
Understanding patient’s treatment
Interacting with Nursing Staff Sharing information
Clarifying information
Assisting with care
Asking questions
Interpreting for the patient
Finding Value Feeling at ease
Feeling included
Valuing individualization
Preparing for the future
Maintaining patient privacy